Analysis of the building shape

erected in Krakow and its impact on

construction costs
Krzysztof Zima
Section of Technology and Building
Management , Cracow University of
Technology, Krakow, Poland.
e-mail: kzima@izwbit.pk.edu.pl
Edyta Plebankiewicz
Section of Technology and Building
Management, Cracow University of
Technology, Krakow, Poland
e-mail: eplebank@izwbit.pk.edu.pl

DOI 10.5592/otmcj.2012.1.6 The choice of a particular architectural solution when de-

Research paper
signing a building considerably influences the costs of its
construction. The article presents the methods of evaluating the
degree of complexity of the building shape. On the basis of factors
specifying building shape complexity an analysis of multi-family
buildings in Krakow was conducted. The analysis concerned 40 build-
ings constructed by developers who received their building permit
in the years 2004-2005, and for comparison 30 buildings whose
building permit was issued in the second half of the year 2010. The
study also included the way the grounds were used for the analysed
constructions. The result of the research revealed a slow growth in
the use of plots for building investments in Krakow.

Keywords Introduction
Cost of building, building The choice of a particular architectur-
shape, multifamily al solution when designing a building
buildings considerably influences the costs of
its construction (Ferry and Brandon,
2007). Generally speaking, the more
complex the form of the horizontal
projection is, the greater expendi-
tures for the construction must be
paid. One of the reasons is the fact
that the shape of the building influ-
ences significantly the number of
such construction elements as foun-
dations, walls, ceilings or the roof
(Ashworth, 2004).
The article presents the basic meth-
ods of evaluating the degree of com-
plexity of the building shape. On the
basis of factors specifying build-
ing shape complexity an analysis of
multi-family buildings in Krakow was
conducted. The analysis concerned
40 buildings constructed by devel-
opers who received their building
permit in the years 2004-2005, and
30 buildings whose building permit
was issued in the second half of the
year 2010. The aim of the article is to
assess the degree of building shape
complexity of Krakows buildings and
to compare the changes in building
design which could be observed dur-
ing the recent years. The study also
included the way the grounds were
used for the analysed constructions.

K. Zima E. Plebankiewicz Analysis of the building shape erected in Krakow and its impact on ... pp 411-419 411
 Methods of evaluating
the degree of building
complexity
The evaluation of the buildings con-
struction costs at the design stage
has a decisive influence on the deci-
sions made at subsequent stages. In
literature one may find a number of
factors deciding on the construction
costs. Kouskoulas and Koehn (1974)
identified the following independent
variables specifying the costs of con-
structing a building: location, year of
construction, building type, building
height, building quality and construc-
tion technology. Brandon (1978) pro-
posed using a building shape index,
the number of storeys, the inner divi-
sion of the building area coefficient,
the average height of the storey, the
coefficient specifying the percentage
of the glass area and the compact-
ness of the block. Karshenas (1984)
added one more factor to these given
by Brandon, namely the area of the
construction site. Swaffield and Pas-
quire (1996) suggested the following:
the percentage of the glass area, the
length of the building perimeter, the
buildings total height, the volume
measure of the rooms and techni-
cal corridors, the volume measure of
the area used up by heating systems,
ventilation and air conditioning. Son-
mez (2004) in his regression model
describing the key factors influencing
building shape included: construction
timing, locations, the area of the con-
struction site, the percentage of the
shared areas, the total area, and the
number of storeys. It is worth noting
that these studies, except Kouskoulas
and Koehns research, consider build-
ing shape and its derivatives, such as
building perimeter and the construc-
tion site area, as key factors influenc-
ing the costs of constructing a build-
ing. Evaluation of the degree of build-
ing shape complexity is, therefore, a
crucial decision element which sig-
nificantly influences the costs of con-
struction and the cost of building use.
412 o rga nization , technology and management i n constructi on an i nte rnati onal j o urnal 4 (1)2 012
Outer partitions, both vertical and
horizontal, are relatively expensive
elements of the building. Outer walls
include in their costs the supporting
walls and curtain walls, plumb lines,
insulation, outer facing and inner ve-
neer.
The conclusion is that the smaller the
surface of the building and the more
compact the block of the building is,
the more advantageous the layout
of the building is, as far as construc-
tion costs are concerned. A general
rule says that the simpler the building
shape is, the lower the unit costs are
(Selley, 1983). A building of a simple
shape has fewer outer walls surround-
ing the floor area and a smaller number
of ceilings. Building shape has, then,
a great influence on the total costs of
construction. This effect concerns not
only the outer but also the inner load-
bearing walls and partition walls. The
layout of these walls often depends
on the layout of the outer support-
ing walls. The improved layout of the
building block makes it possible to im-
prove the layout of flats and corridors.
This should also enhance the relation
between the living area and the com-
munication area. Thus one can assume
that a square- or rectangle-shaped
building has the best building layout
coefficient (Staedman et al., 2009;
Wing, 1999).
Therefore one may ask whether the
shape and size of the building influ-
ence energy efficiency. A building los-
es the most of heat through walls and
roof, so the less complex its shape and
the more compact its block are, the
lower the heat loss is (fewer thermal
bridges and, generally, smaller con-
tact area with the surroundings) (Zima,
2008). Consequently, an energy ef-
ficient building should be designed
on the plan of the square or a not very
elongated rectangle. It is crucial that
the relation between the outer parti-
tions surface and the building projec-
tion surface or its cubic capacity is as
small as possible, so when designing
a low-cost building one should avoid
cross-, letter-L-, letter-T- or letter-H-
shaped buildings.
Then how the complexity (or simplic-
ity) of building shape should be meas-
ured? The coefficient specifying the
layout of the building should consist
of variables which have a significant
influence on construction costs and
are known already at the concept
stage. Such variables may include,
for example, the above mentioned
key factors influencing building costs:
building perimeter and the surface of
the building projection. Other factors
connected with building shape which
influence building costs, that is the
number of right angles, the length of
the longer side of the building perim-
eter, the sum of all inner angles, etc.
are of a slightly lesser importance.
It is necessary to observe that the bulk
of the research into this issue presents
sophisticated methods of evaluating
a buildings construction costs which
take into consideration not only the
shape but also other factors, which
are not included in the present discus-
sion. These methods are based on a
complicated mathematical apparatus
and are hard to apply. Therefore, for
the estimation of building shapes the
authors use the factors proposed by
Brandon (1978) and Kouskoulas and
Koehn (1974).
The example coefficients specifying
the complexity (or simplicity) of build-
ing shape include:
1. W/F (Wall to Floor) index
2. LBI (Length/Breadth Index) index
3. PSI (Plan/Shape Index) index
4. Cooks JC (Cookes JC shape
efficiency) index
5. POP (Perimeter Over Plan) index
6. building planning m index
7. VOLM (Volume - block
compactness) index
8. Optimum envelope area
The W/F index (Brandon, 1978)
The W/F index (Wall/Floor Ratio) spec-
ifies the ratio between the wall sur-
face and floor surface. It is assumed
that the smaller the indexs value is,
the lower the construction costs will
be. The shape generating the small-
est cost is the square, for which the
indexs value is 0. The W/F index is
expressed by the following formula:
W L Ls
= 100%
F Ls
where: L building perimeter calcu-
lated from the contour of the outer
walls, Ls perimeter of the square of
the same surface as the building be-
ing compared.
The LBI index (Brandon, 1978)
The LBI index (the Length/Breadth
Index) assumes that every shape of
the building projection is reduced to
a rectangle with the same surface and
perimeter. For a square the factor has
value 1. The greater the value is, the
more complex shape the building will
have. The LBI index is expressed by
the following formula:
L + L 16F
2
LBI =
L L 16F
2
where: L building perimeter calcu-
lated from the contour of the outer
walls, F the surface of the building
projection.
The PSI index (Brandon, 1978)
The PSI index (Plan/Shape Index) is a
development of the LBI index and is
expressed by the following formula:
G + G 16R
2
PSI =
G L 16R
2
where: G the sum of outer perime-
ters of each floor divided by the num-
ber of floors, R the gross surface
divided by the number of floors.
K. Zima E. Plebankiewicz Analysis of the building shape erected in Krakow and its impact on ... pp 411-419
The Cooks JC shape effectiveness in-
dex (Kouskoulas and Koehn, 1974)
The JC index uses the relation be-
tween the perimeter and the surface
of the building, and is expressed in
the following way:
L (Brandon, 1978)
JC = 1
4 F
where: L building perimeter calcu-
lated from the contour of the outer
walls, F the surface of the building
projection.
The POP (plan compactness ratio) in-
dex (Brandon, 1978)
In this method the point of reference
is the shape of the circle, which has
the smallest ratio between the cir-
cumference and the surface of the
building. For the circle the POP factor
is 1. The lower the indexs value is the
more complex the building shape will
be. The POP index is depicted by the
following formula:
2 F
POP =
L a costly element, so each change in
The building planning m index
(Kouskoulas and Koehn, 1974)
Since the results of using the various
methods employing the ratio between
the building perimeter calculated
from the contour of its outer walls (L)
and the surface of the building projec-
tion (F) are similar, the methods can
be simplified by using this formula:
L VOLM index, the authors assumed a
m=
F optimal value of the block compact-
The m index may take the following
values:
m = 3.54 for a circle
m = (3.54 ; 4) for elliptical shapes
m = 4 for a square
m > 4 the remaining rectangular
and other shapes.
Considering technology and realiza-
tion costs it is assumed that the most
economical solutions take the index
approximating (but not smaller than)
4.
VOLM (block compactness) index
In the case of this index the point
of reference is the shape of a hemi-
sphere. When specifying the block
compactness of a building one takes
into consideration three dimensions
of the object. The VOLM index is de-
picted by this formula:
2
1
3K
3
2x
2
VOLM =
F
where: K the volume measure of the
building, F the surface of the build-
ing projection.
Outer walls (their number is speci-
fied in the formulas above by L) are
the shape of the building causing
the increase in the number of outer
walls per the building projection sur-
face unit F will cause the increase of
construction costs. The higher the
value of the indexes specified in 1),
2), 3) and 5) and the lower for formula
4), the greater the complexity of the
shape of a building and so are the
construction costs. In the case of the
cube as an optimal solution, thus the
ness coefficient is 3.84, which con-
stitutes a nominal value one should
strive for. All the values taken by the
block compactness coefficient higher
or lower than 3.84 indicate a greater
complexity of the block.
413
 Evaluation of residential few percent of all new constructions. provides information about the basic
investments undertaken in The characteristic features of the material from which walls (W) and
Krakow analysed multi-family buildings can ceilings (C) were designed.
The study concerned 40 multi-family be found in Table 2. The table also
buildings constructed by developers
VM NoS AB UA AS L
in Krakow for whom building permits
W C
were granted in 2004-2005, and for No.
[m3] [items] [m2] [m2] [m2] [m]
comparison 30 multi-family build- 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10
ings for which building permits were 1 MAX M 1307.4 2 211.3 282.5 772.0 75.4
given in the second half of the year 2 P M 6850.4 3 626.5 1325.2 904.0 160.0
2010. The study used the records 3 P M 1524.5 3 276.2 559.4 745.0 60.0
from the Office of the City of Krakow, 4 S F 5509.3 3 650.0 2065.7 2317.3 118.3
Faculty of Architecture and Urban 5 S F 5509.3 3 650.0 2065.7 2317.3 118.3
Planning. The authors analysed the 6 S F 5509.3 3 650.0 2065.7 2317.3 118.3
degree of building shape complex- 7 S F 5509.3 3 650.0 2065.7 2317.3 118.3
ity employing the formulas described 8 Ce M 8925.0 3 615.5 1968.8 2215.0 140.0
above, and the way the grounds were
9 Ce M 8044.4 3 619.5 1774.5 2215.0 140.0
used.
10 P M 8471.4 3 1154.6 2398.9 3790.0 153.2
11 P M 8471.4 3 1154.6 2398.9 3790.0 153.2
Description of the investments 12 MAX F 10416.0 3 1195.5 2468.0 6424.5 195.0
with building permits issued in 13 MAX F 10351.0 3 1195.5 2462.9 6424.5 192.0
2004-2005 14 P M 5017.7 4 540.0 1533.4 2440.0 142.0
The analysis concerns 40 multi-
15 P M 5606.0 4 374.0 1161.0 894.0 120.0
family buildings constructed in
16 P M 14514.0 4 1220.1 3074.6 4159.0 156.6
Krakow, which received building
17 P M 1687.0 4 198.5 530.3 787.0 76.9
permits in 2004-2005. The
18 MAX M 13727.0 4 1001.6 3650.5 3942.0 141.9
distribution of the survey sample
19 S M 3150.0 4 244.4 710.5 670.0 63.9
grouped according to the number
20 S M 10133.2 4 896.5 2857.3 3862.0 159.5
of the above-ground storeys is
21 K3 M 13396.5 4 1109.5 3275.2 6336.0 200.0
presented in Table 1.
22 Ce M 12396.4 4 800.0 2734.5 4950.0 180.0
Survey sample 23 P M 6451.0 5 586.5 1994.0 4136.0 155.0
Number of Number of 24 Ce M 10927.6 5 629.0 2410.5 2215.0 150.0
No. %
buildings storeys
25 S M 25903.8 5 1442.1 7359.0 6452.0 242.8
1 1 2.4% 2 26 P M 11427.0 5 842.6 3213.3 5200.0 162.5
2 12 29.3% 3
3 9 22.0% 4 27 P M 10686.0 5 787.2 2977.5 4920.0 166.2
4 6 14.6% 5 28 P M 2325.0 5 155.0 1058.9 485.0 49.8
5 3 7.3% 6
29 S M 24670.0 6 1106.0 6272.5 5041.0 168.0
6 1 2.4% 7
7 1 2.4% 8 30 Ce M 31000.0 6 1090.2 5726.0 8860.0 183.5
8 5 12.2% 9
31 S M 27050.0 7 1106.0 6880.5 5041.0 183.5
9 1 2.4% 11
10 2 4.9% 12 32 FC F 33765.9 8 1075.0 8548.4 3707.0 217.6
33 K3 M 51266.2 9 2544.7 11457.0 9606.0 210.9
Source: Kozik and Zima, 2007, 2008.
34 P M 14361.4 9 582.9 4230.1 2318.4 107.6
Table 1. Distribution of buildings
35 P M 31331.2 9 1184.5 8689.2 4636.9 184.2
grouped according to the number of
the above-ground storeys 36 P M 27516.4 9 1113.8 8141.0 4636.9 184.2
37 P M 14361.4 9 582.9 4230.1 2318.4 107.6

As Table 1 reveals, in the analysed 38 P M 34790.0 11 2079.7 9938.4 12495.0 223.0

period of time the greatest number of 39 P M 23150.0 12 519.5 6196.7 6657.6 104.9
new buildings included those with 3 40 P M 24680.0 12 562.5 6680.7 6700.0 111.5
and 4 storeys. Those with 5 and 9 sto- Source: Kozik and Zima, 2007, 2008
reys constitute several percent of new Table 2. Information about multi-family buildings constructed in Krakow
buildings. Other buildings make up a (building permit 2004-2005)

414 o rga nization , technology and management i n constructi on an i nte rnati onal j o urnal 4 (1)2 012
VM volume C ceilings Lp W/F LBI JC POP m VOLM
measure Ce ceramics
L perimeter AB area of best value 0 1 0 1 4 3.84
K3 K3 brick building site 1 1.17 4.50 0.30 0.68 5.19 2.17
NoS number of S silikat 2 2.16 8.09 0.60 0.55 6.39 2.21
storeys FC ferroconcrete
3 1.27 3.90 0.24 0.71 4.96 1.84
W walls UA usable area
MAX air-brick P porotherm 4 1.72 3.06 0.16 0.76 4.64 1.84
MAX F filigree 5 1.72 3.06 0.16 0.76 4.64 1.84
AS area surface M monolithic
6 1.72 3.06 0.16 0.76 4.64 1.84
Table 2 shows that the most popu- 7 1.72 3.06 0.16 0.76 4.64 1.84
lar materials for vertical partitions 8 1.96 5.79 0.41 0.63 5.64 2.68
in the analysed period of time were 9 1.96 5.74 0.41 0.63 5.62 2.49
breeze-blocks Porotherm (47.5%), si- 10 2.09 2.71 0.13 0.79 4.51 1.38
likats (22.5%), ceramics (12.5%) and 11 2.09 2.71 0.13 0.79 4.51 1.38
the MAX air-bricks (10.0%). Ceilings 12 2.49 5.78 0.41 0.63 5.64 1.53
were mostly monolithic (82.5%) and 13 2.46 5.53 0.39 0.64 5.55 1.52
filigree panels (17.5%) which allow to 14 1.98 7.20 0.53 0.58 6.11 2.08
form rooms freely as there is no need 15 1.74 7.49 0.55 0.57 6.21 3.24
to use supporting ribs under walls 16 2.13 2.65 0.12 0.79 4.48 1.87
and partition walls, like in the case of 17 1.19 5.26 0.36 0.65 5.46 2.74
suspended beam and block floor. The 18 1.98 2.65 0.12 0.79 4.48 2.20
analysed buildings have the volume 19 1.00 1.52 0.02 0.87 4.09 3.37
measure from 1 000 m2 to over 50 000 20 2.16 4.89 0.33 0.67 5.33 2.00
m2. Buildings of 600 m2, 600-1 000 21 2.54 6.87 0.50 0.59 6.00 1.95
m2 and 1 000-2 000 m2 constitute 22 2.35 8.00 0.59 0.56 6.36 2.57
about 30% of the analysed construc- 23 2.11 8.12 0.60 0.55 6.40 2.27
tions. Buildings with the surface big- 24 2.06 6.80 0.50 0.59 5.98 3.00
ger than 2 000m2 make up no more 25 2.90 8.10 0.60 0.55 6.39 2.33
than 5%. 26 2.19 5.66 0.40 0.63 5.60 2.31
Table 3 shows the distribution of 27 2.22 6.62 0.48 0.60 5.92 2.37
the values of some chosen indexes 28 0.76 1.01 0.00 0.89 4.00 4.35
evaluating the complexity of building 29 2.24 4.14 0.26 0.70 5.05 2.94
shape. 30 2.39 5.54 0.39 0.64 5.56 3.47
31 2.39 5.43 0.38 0.64 5.52 3.13
In Table 3 the numbers in bold are 32 2.69 8.90 0.66 0.53 6.64 3.73
those coefficients which are consid- 33 2.63 1.82 0.05 0.85 4.18 2.08
ered the most advantageous. For W/F 34 1.59 2.58 0.11 0.80 4.46 3.89
index these are the values of up to 35 2.39 4.96 0.34 0.66 5.35 3.22
1.00 found only in 2 buildings. The 36 2.39 5.43 0.38 0.64 5.52 3.14
LBI index of up to 2.00 value is con- 37 1.59 2.58 0.11 0.90 4.46 3.89
sidered advantageous and character- 38 2.73 3.71 0.22 0.72 4.89 1.97
izes only 3 buildings. Also 3 buildings 39 1.56 2.96 0.15 0.77 4.60 6.00
have the advantageous JC index of 40 1.64 3.21 0.18 0.75 4.70 5.78
the value up to 0.10. The most advan-
tageous values of the POP index are Source: authors own data
those between 0.80 and 1.00, pos- Table 3. Coefficients evaluating the shape of the buildings with building per-
sessed by 5 buildings. Almost 60% mits issued in 2004-2005
(58.54%) of the analysed buildings
have the m index greater than 5 which shape which can be considered ideal. can be thought as possessing a sim-
indicates a considerably high degree The analysis of the VOLM index whose ple shape. Yet none of the buildings
of shape complexity, as well as high values of 3.50-4.00 indicate minimal considered simple according to the
costs of construction and later use. complexity of the building block re- surface criterion cannot be thought
Only 9.76% of the buildings has the veals that only 7.32% of the buildings as such according to the VOLM index.

K. Zima E. Plebankiewicz Analysis of the building shape erected in Krakow and its impact on ... pp 411-419 415
 Description of the W C
VM NoS AB UA AS L
investments with building No. [m3] [szt.] [m2] [m2] [m2] [m]
permits issued in 2010 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10
The next analysis concerned 30 multi- 1 S M 10442.9 5 (6) 499.3 2658.7 1365.0 126.8
family buildings constructed in Kra- 2 nd nd nd 4(5) 314.6 1132.6 1049.0 71.9
kow which received building permits 3 M M 25449.7 11(12) 828.2 5055.1 3229.3 146.2
in the second half of the year 2010. 4 P M 3355.7 5(7) 783.2 348.3 1410.2 123.5
The distribution of the survey sam- 5 P M 4311.0 5(7) 625.5 575.8 1410.2 118.4
ple grouped according to the number 6 P M 4168.2 5(7) 611.2 512.2 1410.2 118.4
of the above-ground storeys is pre- 7 P M 37883.0 9(11) 1289.5 10577.6 2882.0 218.5
8 M M 28140.3 7(8) 943.2 6613.2 2893.8 144.9
sented in Table 4. The characteristic
9 M M 25115.4 7(8) 841.7 5902.3 2893.8 133.8
features of the studied multi-family
10 Y M 5257.2 4(5) 445.3 nd 7158.0 92.6
buildings are shown in Table 5.
11 Y M 5675.2 4(5) 469.1 nd 7158.0 91.1
12 Y M 8393.0 4(5) 520.4 nd 2808.8 102.7
Survey sample
13 Y M 10273.0 4(5) 611.3 nd 3299.8 128.9
No. of No. of
No. % 14 Y M 8089.0 3(4) 560.7 nd 3026.4 111.1
buildings storeys
1 0 0.00% 2 15 Y M 8650.0 3(4) 564.2 nd 3045.0 121.3
2 4 13.33% 3 16 Y M 5551.0 3(4) 395.8 nd 2135.9 86.9
3 8 26.67% 4 17 M M 8643.3 6(7) 464.1 2376.1 5829.0 91.1
4 7 23.33% 5 18 M M 4339.7 6(7) 1850.1 8299.3 nd 295.2
5 5 16.67% 6 19 M M 4410.3 8(9) 1702.1 8432.2 nd 210.1
6 3 10.00% 7 20 M M 2411.5 6(7) 1039.1 4471.8 nd 160.0
7 1 3.33% 8 21 M M 2141.7 6(7) 923.0 3893.0 nd 151.0
8 1 3.33% 9 22 P M 11197.3 5(6) 761.8 3532.4 1406.1 156.8
9 0 0.00% 11 23 P M 4392.9 4 305.7 1320.0 3662.0 114.8
10 1 3.33% 12 24 P M 13483.4 5(6) 856.6 3394.6 2528.8 189.4
25 P M 13532.5 5(6) 859.8 3411.9 2538.0 190.1
Source: authors analysis of the data from
the Office of the City of Krakow, Faculty of 26 P M 10235.1 4(5) 803.4 2528.2 2371.6 186.3
Architecture and Urban Planning 27 P M 10912.7 4(5) 856.6 2712.7 2528.6 187.3
Table 4. Distribution of buildings 28 Y M 760.0 3(3) 123.0 165.1 910.0 47.0
grouped according to the number of 29 M M nd 6(7) 501.8 2 35.9 1890.0 106.5
the above-ground storeys 30 H M nd 7(7) 482.7 nd 1672.3 107.6
VM volume measure L - perimeter P porotherm
NoS number of: above-ground AB area of building site S silikat
storeys (above + below ground UA usable area Y Ytong blocks
Materials most frequently used for storeys) W walls H H+H blocks
AS area surface C ceiling M - monolithic
vertical partitions are breeze blocks
nd no data
Porotherm (33.3%), poured concrete
monolithic walls (30%) and Ytong Source: authors analysis of the data from the Office of the City of Krakow, Faculty of
blocks (26.7%). Ceilings are largely Architecture and Urban Planning
monolithic (96.6%, in one case there Table 5. Data describing multi-family buildings constructed in Krakow (build-
was no data) . The other data in Table ing permits in 2010)
5 describing the buildings under con-
struction are the surface and cubic the JC and POP. Precisely 43.33% of simple shape. As previously, none of
coefficients. the analysed buildings has the co- the buildings considered simple ac-
Table 6 reveals the distribution of the efficient value greater than 5. Only cording to the surface criterion pos-
values of some chosen indexes evalu- 13.33% has the shape which can be sesses a simple shape when analysed
ating the degree of building shape considered very good. As far as the according to the VOLM index.
complexity. VOLM index is concerned, assum- Figures 1a, 1b, 1c depict the influence
ing the same range of complexity as of the change in the building shape
Only one building has the advanta- before, i.e. values between 3.50 and and, consequently, the change in the
geous value of the W/F index. 4 build- 4.00 indicating a building block as factors evaluating building shape and
ings are marked by the LBI index also simple, only 11.11% of the analysed construction costs, as shown in Table
considered advantageous and 7 by buildings can be thought to have a 5.

416 o rga nization , technology and management i n constructi on an i nte rnati onal j o urnal 4 (1)2 012
 lp W/F LBI JC POP m VOLM The construction costs of individual
best value 0 1 0 1 4 buildings presented in Table 5 were
1 1.81 5.88 0.42 0.62 5.67 3.67 calculated in the investors cost esti-
2 1.12 1.38 0.01 0.88 4.05 nd
mates by means of a simplified tech-
3 2.02 4.22 0.27 0.70 5.08 4.01
nique. Having compared the construc-
4 1.78 2.46 0.10 0.80 4.41 1.10
tion costs of 1 m2 and the building
5 1.72 3.30 0.18 0.75 4.74 1.63
shape factors presented in Table 6,
6 1.72 3.45 0.20 0.74 4.79 1.63
one observes a tendency in the build-
7 2.70 7.11 0.52 0.58 6.08 3.36
ing shape changes depending on the
8 2.01 3.25 0.18 0.75 4.72 3.77
changes of individual factors. Thus
9 1.89 2.98 0.15 0.77 4.61 3.91
altering the values of the JC and POP
10 1.41 2.39 0.10 0.81 4.39 2.61
by 0.1 (e.g. from 0.3 to 0.4) changes
11 1.39 1.89 0.05 0.84 4.20 2.60
construction costs to 3.8% and 7.6%
12 1.53 2.69 0.13 0.79 4.50 3.05
respectively (Figure 1a). In the case
13 1.84 4.58 0.30 0.68 5.21 2.97
of the m, LBI and W/F, altering one of
14 1.64 3.19 0.17 0.76 4.69 2.76
these factors by 1 causes the growth
15 1.75 4.29 0.28 0.69 5.11 2.87
in costs by 0.9%, 3.3% and 4.4% (Fig-
16 1.33 2.35 0.09 0.81 4.37 3.04
ure 1b). Finally, altering the VOLM
17 1.39 1.96 0.06 0.84 4.23 3.48
factor by 0.5 increases construction
18 3.30 9.67 0.72 0.52 6.86 0.55
costs by 4.4%.
19 2.62 4.25 0.27 0.70 5.09 0.61
20 2.16 3.90 0.24 0.71 4.96 0.66
21 2.07 3.92 0.24 0.71 4.97 0.69
The intensity of built-up
22 2.13 5.90 0.42 0.62 5.68 2.52 areas
23 1.68 8.67 0.64 0.54 6.57 3.37 Evaluation of the way a building site
24 2.44 8.35 0.62 0.55 6.47 2.54 was used can be conducted as an in-
25 2.45 8.39 0.62 0.55 6.48 2.54 dex of intensity of built-up areas. It
26 2.41 8.69 0.64 0.54 6.57 2.25 is understood as an index specifying
27 2.42 8.12 0.60 0.55 6.40 2.20 the relationship of the total building
28 0.71 1.99 0.06 0.84 4.24 2.60 site area on a certain location to the
29 1.58 3.35 0.19 0.75 4.76 nd size of the land of that location. For
30 1.59 3.72 0.22 0.72 4.90 nd Polish norm PN ISO 9836 total build-
Source: authors own data
ing site area is defined as the area
Table 6. Coefficients evaluating the shapes of the buildings for which permits taken up by the completed building
were granted in 2010 and is specified by a vertical drop of
the outer edges of the building on the
area surface.
The area of a building site does not
include the following:
the surface of buildings or their
parts situated below the ground;
the surface of secondary elements,
such as outer stairs, outer ramps,
canopies, awnings, roof protru-
sions or outer lighting;
the surface taken up by auxiliary
buildings, e.g. greenhouses, gaze-
boes, or sheds.
As an intensity of built-up areas index
I let us assume the relation between
the building site area Pz and the area
Figure 1a. The relationship between construction costs of the analysed of the plot P t. When analysing how
buildings and the JC and POP factors evaluating building shape. the area in Krakow has been used for

K. Zima E. Plebankiewicz Analysis of the building shape erected in Krakow and its impact on ... pp 411-419 417
 building investments one notices a
small increase in its use. The average
intensity of built-up areas in the case
of buildings for which permits were
given in 2010 was 27.8%, while the
percentage in 2004-2005 was 25.2%
(Table 7).

The intensity of built-up areas index

ranged between 6.2% and 55.5% in
the case of buildings with building
permit granted in 2010, and between
7.8% and 69.3% for buildings with the
permit issued in 2004-2005. One no-
Figure 1b. The relationship between construction costs of the analysed build- tices a tendency to increase the use of
ings and the m, LB and W/F factors evaluating building shape. the building site, probably due to the
smaller number of available plots in
Krakow, the growing competition on
the building market and high prices of
estates.

Conclusions
Analysing the change in the shape of
the buildings constructed in Krakow
in the years 2004/2005 and in 2010,
a certain improvement can be noticed.
Slightly more 2010 buildings have the
most advantageous values of the LBI,
JC and POP factors. The noticeable
tendency is specified by the m index
for buildings with the 2004-2005 per-
Figure 1c. The relationship between construction costs of the analysed build- mit equal to 5.48 (58.54% of very com-
ings and the VOLM factor evaluating building shape. plex shapes) and for newer buildings
No. 2010 2004 No. 2010 2004 No. 2010 2004 with the 2010 permit 5.16 (43.33% of
1 8.3% 27.4% 15 54.2% 41.8% 29 nd 21.9% complex shapes). This gradual im-
2 25.6% 69.3% 16 33.9% 29.3% 30 44.7% 24.4% provement in the compactness of the
3 13.5% 37.1% 17 33.9% 25.2% 31 - 12.3% building block is shown by the VOLM
4 18.5% 28.0% 18 55.5% 25.4% 32 - 21.9% index.
5 18.5% 28.0% 19 44.4% 36.5% 33 - 29.0%
6 18.5% 28.0% 20 43.3% 23.2% 34 - 26.5% A slow growth in the use of plots for
7 30.0% 28.0% 21 8.0% 17.5% 35 - 25.1% building investments in Krakow is
8 6.2% 27.8% 22 nd 16.2% 36 - 25.5% noticeable, which is caused by the in-
9 6.6% 28.0% 23 nd 14.2% 37 - 24.0% creasing experience of designers, who
10 18.5% 30.5% 24 nd 28.4% 38 - 25.1% are forced by investors to maximize
11 18.5% 30.5% 25 26.6% 22.4% 39 - 16.6% the profits from the use of the plot.
12 33.9% 18.6% 26 28.9% 16.2% 40 - 7.8% The average intensity of built-up areas
13 33.9% 18.6% 27 32.6% 16.0% 41 - 84% in the case of buildings with the 2010
14 36.6% 22.1% 28 29.1% 32.0% average 27.8% 25.2% permit is 27.8%, while in the case of
Source: authors analysis of the data from the Office of the City of Krakow, Faculty of the buildings with the 2004/2005
Architecture and Urban Planning permit 25.2%. The intensity index
Table 7. The intensity of built-up areas index for multi-family building ranged between 6.2%-55.5% in the
investments in Krakow case of the buildings with the 2010

418 o rga nization , technology and management i n constructi on an i nte rnati onal j o urnal 4 (1)2 012

permit, and 7.8%-69.3% in the case
of the buildings with the 2004/2005
permit.
What is even more noticeable is de-
signing buildings having costs in
mind, which translates into construct-
ing buildings simpler in shape to
decrease the costs of construction.
Clients preferences as well as le-
gal requirements, i.e. the obligation
of preparing energy certificates for
buildings, which has been in force
since January 2009, cause greater
care for possible loss of heat.
References
[1] Ashworth, A. (2004), Cost studies of
buildings, Trans-Atlantic Pubns, 4th ed.
[2] Brandon, P.S. (1978), A framework
for cost exploration and strategic cost
planning in design, Chartered Surveyor
Building and Quantity Surveying
Quarterly, 5(4), pp. 60-63.
K. Zima E. Plebankiewicz Analysis of the building shape erected in Krakow and its impact on ... pp 411-419
[3] Ferry, D.J. and Brandon P.S. (2007), Cost
planning of building, Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford, 8th ed.
[4] Karshenas, S. (1984), Predesign
cost estimating method for multistory
buildings, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 110(1),
pp. 7986.
[5] Kouskoulas, V. and Koehn, E. (1974),
Predesign cost-estimation function for
buildings, Journal of the Construction
Division, ASCE, 100(CO4), pp. 589604.
[6] Kozik, R. and Zima, K. (2007), Analysis
of housing investments realized by
developers, Scientific Papers of Gdansk
University of Technology, No. 605, Land
Engineering No. LXI, Gdask, pp. 23-30
(in polish).
[7] Kozik, R. and Zima, K. (2008), Analysis
and evaluation of developer projects in
15th Annual European Real Estate Society
Conference, ERES, UE in Krakow, Book of
Abstracts, Krakow 8-21, pp. 76.
[8] Selley, L.H. (1983), Building Economics,
Macmillan, London, 3rd ed.
[9] Sonmez, R. (2004), Conceptual
cost estimation of building projects
with regression analysis and neural
networks, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, No. 31, pp. 677683.
[10] Staedman, P., Evans, S. and Batty, M.
(2009), Wall area, volume and plan depth
in the building stock, Building Research
& Information, 37: 5, pp. 455 467.
[11] Swaffield, L.M. and Pasquire, C.L.
(1996), A critique of mechanical and
electrical services cost planning: existing
methods and published information,
Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, 1(3), pp. 23-41.
[12] Wing, C.K. (1999), On the issue of plan
shape complexity: plan shape indices
revisited, Construction Management
and Economic, No 17, pp. 473-482.
[13] Zima, K. (2008), Influence of building
shape on the construction cost,
Scientific Papers of the Institute of
Building Engineering of the Wrocaw
University of Technology No. 91, series:
Studies and Materials No. 20, Technology
and management in construction,
Wrocaw, pp. 155-162 (in polish).
419